Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment
European countries in which universities rely on public funding increasingly follow the lead of the United Kingdom and run Research Assessment Exercises. Given the subjective nature of such evaluations, some scientists prefer verifiable measures such as citation counts. This, however, also is prone to problems since the number of cites is correlated, among others, with the order of appearance in an issue. In particular, leading papers are more cited. It is, thus, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality, or whether this happens because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is at the editors' discretion in other issues. Our estimates suggest that approximately two thirds of the additional cites are due to going first, and one third to higher quality. Copyright 2010 Oxford University Press 2009 All rights reserved, Oxford University Press.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|Date of creation:||2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in: Oxford Economic Papers (2009)|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://difusion.ulb.ac.be
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2006.
"An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers,"
The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS)
744, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, 02.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2006. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers," IZA Discussion Papers 2070, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- William J. Moore & Robert J. Newman & Peter J. Sloane & Jeremy D. Steely, . "Productivity Effects of Research Assessment Exercises," Departmental Working Papers 2002-15, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
- GINSBURGH, Victor & van OURS, Jan, 2002.
"Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition,"
CORE Discussion Papers
2002033, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Victor A. Ginsburgh & Jan C. van Ours, 2003. "Expert Opinion and Compensation: Evidence from a Musical Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 289-296, March.
- GINSBURGH, Victor & VAN OURS, Jan C., . "Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1617, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Victor Ginsburgh & Jan van Ours, 2003. "Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/1681, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Ayres, Ian & Vars, Fredrick E, 2000. "Determinants of Citations to Articles in Elite Law Reviews," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 427-50, January.
- Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2006.
"Peer Review vs Metric-Based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments,"
University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics
7-2006, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
- Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2011. "Peer Review vs Metric‐based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(311), pages 565-583, 07.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521848053 is not listed on IDEAS
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/99299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Benoit Pauwels)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.